|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 02/02/2007 : 15:01:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
OK, Dave, help me out here. You are saying the ISP SFN pays uses the "pipes" for free or pays the same regardless of usage? I don't think so.
Actually, I said, "I don't know what it costs to connect into (for example) AT&T's cross-country network..."quote:
I would think your ISP either owns into the system or has a setup similar to how phone lines are shared. AT&T originally owned all the phone lines but they were split into the "Baby Bells". That included the phone lines as well.
Some big fiber cables out there are owned by particular companies. Whether or not any particular request for a web page will be fulfilled by packets travelling across one of those owned pipes is anybody's guess (the nature of the Internet is to re-route stuff as needed).quote:
If the issue was charging for the pipes, then why not raise rates uniformly? Pay for volume not for privilege.
I was under the impression that that's exactly what the opponents of neutrality want to do: because (for example) YouTube delivers so much more volume than (for example) a text-only web site, YouTube should pay more to the middle-men.quote:
It is the people already charging on both ends who plan to profit from selling the middle. I will reaffirm this in light of your understanding, but that was my understanding.
My understanding was the exact opposite, which is why I (for one) would prefer to see relevant quotes from references on this topic instead of getting linked to one page and expected to read many more on the same site. I mean, nothing I read on the sites you linked to changed my impression that it's the owners of the big "pipes" in the middle who are against neutrality legislation, and they're not out to stiff the 10-year-old down the street, start-up enterpreneurs or any of the billions of others of "small fish," but I have no idea if I've read everything you've read. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/02/2007 : 23:45:51 [Permalink]
|
Gee, Dave. It isn't like there was reason to doubt the Wiki statement, "Most telcos now also function as ISPs, and the distinction between telco and ISP may disappear completely over time."
Nor is it the least bit difficult to actually look at the system. It took me 3 web pages to get here:
"Internet: "The Big Picture" ; "What are the major pieces of the Internet,
and who are the major players in each segment?"
Local Loop Carrier - Connects the User location to the ISP's Point of Presence
1. Communication Lines -RBOCS: (Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, Bell South, Cincinnati Bell, NYNEX, Pacific Bell, Southwestern Bell, US West),GTE, LEC's, MFS, TCG, Brooks,
2. Cable - List of Cable ISP's.
3. Satellite - DirecPC.
4. Power line - Digital PowerLine by Nortel.
5. Wireless - Wireless Week, Wireless Access Tech Magazine, Yahoos' List for Wireless networking.
Equipment Manufacturers: Nortel, Lucent, Newbridge, Siemens.
However, I had always wanted to look at such a page but hadn't gotten around to it.
A also found a site with the Internet traffic flow which was interesting.
And, a list of the major players worldwide, was also interesting.
Clearly all these companies are making money, probably record profits.
Being the corporate cynic that I am when it comes to believing these guys, I see this as a move to change the free information access model the Net currently is into the commercial control of information access by economic power that TV and radio currently are. If you had evidence this was only about infrastructure investment I might be less cynical.
I believe it is about turning the critical free flow of information into a profit generating commercial flow of information. Given what has happened to the distribution of information on our TVs today, I think this is the most important issue of our time, even more important than the current war is and you know how much that preoccupies my time.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2007 : 01:24:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
Gee, Dave. It isn't like there was reason to doubt the Wiki statement, "Most telcos now also function as ISPs, and the distinction between telco and ISP may disappear completely over time."
I don't disagree with that statement. I do realize, however, that telcos aren't the only ISPs around.quote:
Nor is it the least bit difficult to actually look at the system. It took me 3 web pages to get here:
"Internet: "The Big Picture" ; "What are the major pieces of the Internet,
and who are the major players in each segment?"
Local Loop Carrier - Connects the User location to the ISP's Point of Presence
1. Communication Lines -RBOCS: (Ameritech, Bell Atlantic, Bell South, Cincinnati Bell, NYNEX, Pacific Bell, Southwestern Bell, US West),GTE, LEC's, MFS, TCG, Brooks,
2. Cable - List of Cable ISP's.
3. Satellite - DirecPC.
4. Power line - Digital PowerLine by Nortel.
5. Wireless - Wireless Week, Wireless Access Tech Magazine, Yahoos' List for Wireless networking.
Equipment Manufacturers: Nortel, Lucent, Newbridge, Siemens.
I was clearly talking about the ISP backbone providers, while you're still talking about local loop carriers. I couldn't possibly agree that they're necessarily the same companies for any given information exchange across the Internet.quote:
However, I had always wanted to look at such a page but hadn't gotten around to it.
Glad you found the time.quote:
A also found a site with the Internet traffic flow which was interesting.
Sure is.quote:
And, a list of the major players worldwide, was also interesting.
That, too.quote:
Cearly all these companies are making money, probably record profits.
Do you have any evidence to present that all of those companies are making money on those particular Internet services? Most large companies recognize the cynical necessity of "loss leaders." Do you have any evidence that those Internet services are generating "record profits" for those particular companies?quote:
Being the corporate cynic that I am...
Perhaps that's part of the problem we're having. I'm trying to apply skepticism to this situation, but you're letting your cynicism run free.quote:
...when it comes to believing these guys, I see this as a move to change the free information access model the Net currently is into the commercial control of information access by economic power that TV and radio currently are.
Well, there's the main problem right there: I have no evidence that anyone is attempting to extert "commercial control on information access by economic power" on the Internet. The hyperbolic "you won't be able to see the web site of the 10-year-old down the street" arguments aren't evidence as far as I'm concerned. I don't see any difference between that sort of argument and the gun-nuts' claims that simply registering firearms will lead inevitably to their confiscation. I await your evidence that the failure to pass 'net neutrality legislation will ultimately result in the scenario you envision.quote:
If you had evidence this was only about infrastructure investment I might be less cynical.
Why should I have evidence of something I did not claim? While infrastructure investment is a necessity, it certainly isn't the only thing governing how packets are passed around the 'net. Such a view is naive, and I can't help but conclude that you're attributing it to me due to your cynicism and lack of skepticism on this subject.quote:
I believe it is about turning the critical free flow of information into a profit generating commercial flow of information. Given what has happened to the distribution of information on our TVs today, I think this is the most important issue of our time, even more important than the current war is and you know how much that preoccupies my time.
I don't share your cynicism, beskeptigal, and I've already been ridiculed - gently - in this thread for comparing the Internet to TV service. I even defended the comparison, but still don't find any evidence that the Internet is in some sort of danger without neutrality legislation which would only affect the U.S.A. anyway. Is there any reason to think that the neutrality legislation will not result in the "outsourcing" of major routers to simply avoid the law? Why doesn't your cynicism extend to that scenario? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2007 : 14:40:40 [Permalink]
|
quote:
DAVE:Perhaps that's part of the problem we're having. I'm trying to apply skepticism to this situation, but you're letting your cynicism run free.
BESKEP:...when it comes to believing these guys, I see this as a move to change the free information access model the Net currently is into the commercial control of information access by economic power that TV and radio currently are.
DAVE:Well, there's the main problem right there: I have no evidence that anyone is attempting to extert "commercial control on information access by economic power" on the Internet. The hyperbolic "you won't be able to see the web site of the 10-year-old down the street" arguments aren't evidence as far as I'm concerned. I don't see any difference between that sort of argument and the gun-nuts' claims that simply registering firearms will lead inevitably to their confiscation. I await your evidence that the failure to pass 'net neutrality legislation will ultimately result in the scenario you envision.
BESKEP:If you had evidence this was only about infrastructure investment I might be less cynical.
DAVE: Why should I have evidence of something I did not claim? While infrastructure investment is a necessity, it certainly isn't the only thing governing how packets are passed around the 'net. Such a view is naive, and I can't help but conclude that you're attributing it to me due to your cynicism and lack of skepticism on this subject.
BESKEP:I believe it is about turning the critical free flow of information into a profit generating commercial flow of information. Given what has happened to the distribution of information on our TVs today, I think this is the most important issue of our time, even more important than the current war is and you know how much that preoccupies my time.
DAVE: I don't share your cynicism, beskeptigal, and I've already been ridiculed - gently - in this thread for comparing the Internet to TV service. I even defended the comparison, but still don't find any evidence that the Internet is in some sort of danger without neutrality legislation which would only affect the U.S.A. anyway. Is there any reason to think that the neutrality legislation will not result in the "outsourcing" of major routers to simply avoid the law? Why doesn't your cynicism extend to that scenario?
Keep in mind my cynicism is based on the nature of the corporate structure, not merely my dislike of commercialism.
Corporations are structured to act in the best interest of the corporation. They are raking in record profits right now.
They do not automatically invest those profits and when they do invest them, it is in their own best interest.
There is a fallacy in capitalism that the market will always result in the best, whether that be the best product or system or the best future world. It is true to a point that capitalism results in wonderful and efficient things.
But monopolies are not efficient for anything except profits. What the market will bear only works when there isn't a shortage of necessities, whether that shortage is real or the result of monopoly control.
Concentration of wealth has all sorts of effects on market forces distorting the properties which make supply and demand efficient. For example the current effect massive wealth is having on political decisions is disrupting true market forces with legislation geared to favor some corporations. A law which doesn't allow the government to negotiate prescription drug costs for example influences market forces.
The effects of advertising has become so sophisticated people are bilked out of billions of dollars every year because a product has better advertising, not because it is a better product.
Market forces, media monopolies, concentration of wealth and sophisticated marketing literally destroyed news reporting in this country. If you get most of your facts from the TV, it's an understatement to say you will be poorly informed.
What makes you think, given all that, if we allow money to control the flow of information on the Internet, we won't see the Net becoming the same distorted source of information TV has become?
Charging for volume isn't the request here. These companies want to charge for privilege.
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2007 : 15:20:22 [Permalink]
|
beskeptical wrote: quote:
What makes you think, given all that, if we allow money to control the flow of information on the Internet, we won't see the Net becoming the same distorted source of information TV has become?
Don't forget radio!
I share beskeptical's corporate cynicism, and I also agree that it is based in both reasoning and a recent track record. It is not just cynicism running free.
 |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/03/2007 15:20:35 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2007 : 22:57:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
What makes you think, given all that, if we allow money to control the flow of information on the Internet, we won't see the Net becoming the same distorted source of information TV has become?
You're asking me to believe - without presenting anything but an argument by analogy - a couple of things here:
A) that the 'net will become "the same distorted source of information TV has become," and
B) that the 'net has not already become such.
I'm asking for evidence for both of those assertions. Don't play dumb and try to shift the burden of proof over to me with that "what makes you think..." crappola. What makes you think what you think, beskeptigal? You and marfknox are the ones with the positive claim and call to action, here, and I want to see more than appeals to emotion with hot-button gloom-and-doom scenarios.
I said in my first post to this thread:I'd be very much interested to see a well-reasoned and detailed look at why "the invisible hand" shouldn't be allowed to moderate the whole Internet, because that site doesn't have one. and I've yet to see anyone put forth what I asked for. Saying, basically, that because of corporate greed and the myths of capitalism what happened to TV will happen to the Internet isn't well-reasoned or detailed. Arguments by analogy regularly fail the ID creationists for good reason: analogies only extend so far.
In this case, to make the analogy stick, you're going to have to provide evidence that, as in the case of TV, eventually there will be only six major ISPs and not only will they make customers pay for service, but they'll enforce corporate control over what gets published on individual websites. Because if that's not the issue, then the fact that six media companies own most of the airwaves is a complete red herring, and there's no reason for the analogy in the first place.
And forcryingoutloud, it's hard to see the fundamental problem with the "Big Six" when, for example, Clear Channel broadcasts Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh, Art Bell and Jesse Jackson (for just four diverse examples). That really drives home the point that fewer media conglomerations means fewer viewpoints being aired, doesn't it?quote:
Charging for volume isn't the request here. These companies want to charge for privilege.
Let's see some evidence for that, from the horse's mouths, because all I've seen - quoted on pro-neutrality sites - is "these companies" arguing for pay-by-volume pricing. Where is the evidence that you've seen but I haven't? What is it that you want me (and others) to see here that I obviously don't? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/03/2007 : 23:34:37 [Permalink]
|
By the way, is there a risk that without neutrality, the Internet may find itself with many fewer voices on it? Sure, there is a non-zero risk of that, in exactly the same way that there's a non-zero risk that a gun registration law will lead to the confiscation of all privately-owned firearms. But the fact that a risk exists doesn't, of course, mean it is inevitable.
Besides, we had laws restricting media ownership in the U.S.A. - what you seem to be saying would make them analogous to TV, radio and newspaper "neutrality" laws - and the "media conglomerates" successfully lobbied Congress and the FCC to get rid of most of them. What makes you think that a 'net neutrality law would fare any better? If the result is inevitable, or even only better than 50/50, why should we waste our time passing legislation that will be undone in under 60 years? Why not give 'em what they want, and spend our time finding more-permanent solutions to the basic problems of corporate greed and an imperfect capitalism, instead? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2007 : 03:47:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
You're asking me to believe - without presenting anything but an argument by analogy - a couple of things here:
A) that the 'net will become "the same distorted source of information TV has become," and
B) that the 'net has not already become such.
I'm asking for evidence for both of those assertions. Don't play dumb and try to shift the burden of proof over to me with that "what makes you think..." crappola. What makes you think what you think, beskeptigal? You and marfknox are the ones with the positive claim and call to action, here, and I want to see more than appeals to emotion with hot-button gloom-and-doom scenarios.
I can't believe your perception of this issue. No one is playing dumb. You are ignoring volumes of evidence of these corporate histories calling it an analogy. It isn't an analogy, it's history. It's every single commercial broadcaster and even that wasn't enough. There are political forces under pressure from capitalism forces still trying to stifle information on public TV.
There has been a combination of market forces along with the political clout of corporate money that has led to the destruction of broadcast media as a source of information. How can you possibly think that given the same structure of the million dollar microphone and millions of relatively inexpensive receivers we won't have commercial control over Internet information in a short period of time?
Given the evidence that corporate actions in all other cases except Ben and Jerrys is similar, I most certainly can ask you what evidence do you have this won't happen? And are you suggesting we not be concerned given the state of information on TV and radio that the public thinks is informative, but which those of us paying any attention know isn't? Should we ignore the risk until it's too late, or difficult to reverse things?
Re B - What are you talking about? Do you have no clue what has happened to broadcast information? Are you seriously suggesting there is any comparison whatsoever?
I do have concerns about search engines power to control access to information especially given Google's China example. You have to wonder if Google acquiesced to the Chinese government in order to simply make money or whether the decision makers really thought a foot in the door was better than nothing.
But I can choose different search engines and did still use Teoma until recently. Unfortunately they were acquired by Ask.com. Teoma was more of a science search engine. Regardless, there are many sites like Pubmed and library sites with search engines of various specific data bases. And Google still uses software that merely prioritizes by # of hits on a site. I notice now a lot more of my Google searches turn up a few pages of blogs and forum entries before other sites. When I get commercial sites with a search entry I can usually change the search words and get more informative sites.
quote:
I said in my first post to this thread:I'd be very much interested to see a well-reasoned and detailed look at why "the invisible hand" shouldn't be allowed to moderate the whole Internet, because that site doesn't have one. and I've yet to see anyone put forth what I asked for. Saying, basically, that because of corporate greed and the myths of capitalism what happened to TV will happen to the Internet isn't well-reasoned or detailed. Arguments by analogy regularly fail the ID creationists for good reason: analogies only extend so far.
In this case, to make the analogy stick, you're going to have to provide evidence that, as in the case of TV, eventually there will be only six major ISPs and not only will they make customers pay for service, but they'll enforce corporate control over what gets published on individual websites. Because if that's not the issue, then the fact that six media companies own most of the airwaves is a complete red herring, and there's no reason for the analogy in the first place.
And forcryingoutloud, it's hard to see the fundamental problem with the "Big Six" when, for example, Clear Channel broadcasts Al Franken, Rush Limbaugh, Art Bell and Jesse Jackson (for just four diverse examples). That really drives home the point that fewer media conglomerations means fewer viewpoints being aired, doesn't it?quote:
Charging for volume isn't the request here. These companies want to charge for privilege.
Let's see some evidence for that, from the horse's mouths, because all I've seen - quoted on pro-neutrality sites - is "these companies" arguing for pay-by-volume pricing. Where is the evidence that you've seen but I haven't? What is it that you want me (and others) to see here that I obviously don't?
Well here's part of the problem right here. You think because there is still access to information on a couple of radio talk shows and Democracy Now! which you didn't mention, that the lack of information going out to mainstream America doesn't matter.
Tell me why is it the vast majority of real information is only on the relatively few public channels, and a very few radio stations? What impact does it have when the 'truth and facts' I hear about are not going out to the majority of Americans? My son gets his information from the Internet. My parents' generation and half my neighbors get their information from the TV. And they don't get it from CSPAN or even PBS, let alone SCAN, our real public channel. I have no doubt the majority of Americans are ignorant of their ignorance.
I wouldn't have even known about Democracy Now! and certainly wouldn't have turned on Air America when it started if there wasn't a Internet to learn about the real world out there. I see the Net literally as the hope for our country to remain a democracy. Given the American public's ignorance of world events, of science, and of the current political leadership's deceptions and corruption, I believe the deterioration of broadcast information contributes a great deal to that ignorance. The fact the younger generation is getting more information from the Internet than the TV gives me a lot of hope for the country.
It also means the people enjoying the information control of mainstream broadcast media are going to be looking for ways to make up the loss as one generation dies out and the new one doesn't replace it as the broadcast audience.
It was the TV images of the Vietnam war and the civil rights movement that are credited with much of the change in public opinion about those two major events in our lifetime. Today you can see more of the Iraq war on CNN International than you can on CNN broadcast in this country. Why is that? Why was the contract employee who gave photos of returning US military coffins fired for giving the photos to the media? But worse than that, why isn't the media fighting such censorship? What was the implication of Bush replacing the head of PBS with a political hack? Have you seen the letter Media Matters has with all the corporate signatories requiring none of their sponsorship dollars be spent on ads aired on Ai |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/05/2007 03:56:58 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2007 : 04:09:08 [Permalink]
|
From the Google site:
http://commerce.senate.gov/pdf/cerf-020706.pdf
"As we move to a broadband consumer network, the Internet's openness is being threatened. Most consumers face few choices among broadband carriers, giving carriers tremendous market power. At the same time, the FCC has shown little willingness to extend the long-standing non-discrimination rules governing our telecommunications system to the incumbent broadband providers. As a result, carriers increasingly will have an economic incentive to use their power to block competitors, seek extra payments to ensure that Internet content can be seen, and generally control consumer activity online.
Were there sufficient competition among and between various broadband networks, Google's concerns about the future of the Internet would largely be allayed. Unfortunately, the FCC's own figures demonstrate the significant degree of concentration in the broadband market. In 2004, the Commission reported that only 53 percent of Americans have a choice between cable modem service and DSL service. Of the remaining consumers, 28 percent have only one choice, and 19 percent have no choice at all. Thus, nearly half of all consumers lack meaningful choice in broadband providers.....
...In the absence of any meaningful competition in the consumer broadband market, and without the user safeguards that have governed similar last-mile competition to date, one would expect carriers to have an economic incentive – and the opportunity -- to control users' online activity. Not surprisingly, this incentive is already manifesting itself. Just last spring, the FCC found that the Madison River Telephone Company was blocking ports used by its DSL customers to access competing VoIP services.2 Similar examples are emerging internationally as well. More revealingly, in recent months senior executives of major U.S. carriers have indicated publicly that they intend to force competing services and content providers to pay to be seen online.3 Together, these examples show that carrier discrimination is not a hypothetical concern."
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2007 : 04:14:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
By the way, is there a risk that without neutrality, the Internet may find itself with many fewer voices on it? Sure, there is a non-zero risk of that, in exactly the same way that there's a non-zero risk that a gun registration law will lead to the confiscation of all privately-owned firearms. But the fact that a risk exists doesn't, of course, mean it is inevitable.
Besides, we had laws restricting media ownership in the U.S.A. - what you seem to be saying would make them analogous to TV, radio and newspaper "neutrality" laws - and the "media conglomerates" successfully lobbied Congress and the FCC to get rid of most of them. What makes you think that a 'net neutrality law would fare any better? If the result is inevitable, or even only better than 50/50, why should we waste our time passing legislation that will be undone in under 60 years? Why not give 'em what they want, and spend our time finding more-permanent solutions to the basic problems of corporate greed and an imperfect capitalism, instead?
See the above post for your earlier claims there was no threat. Re this post, where have you been? Those laws restricting media concentration were wiped out by the Bush administration. We should be working to re-instate them, not throw our hands up and say we might as well ignore the same thing happening to the Net because we can't stop it anyway.
What solutions are you suggesting and why not stave off the assault on our flow of information until those other solutions are possible?
More permanent solutions? I think we have that if we don't lose it. It's called free flow of information.
You can see a small change now given the tide turning against Bush and his Neocons. The newsmedia has spoken up more now than a year ago. We need to stick our foot in that crack in the door and push it open. And if I didn't think we could, I wouldn't bother so much with the skeptical community. I enjoy the company but more than that I want skepticism to grow. This is our saving grace.
|
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 02/05/2007 04:18:10 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2007 : 15:40:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I can't believe your perception of this issue. No one is playing dumb. You are ignoring volumes of evidence of these corporate histories calling it an analogy. It isn't an analogy, it's history. It's every single commercial broadcaster and even that wasn't enough. There are political forces under pressure from capitalism forces still trying to stifle information on public TV.
You are claiming that the Internet is so similar to broadcast TV that what has happened to TV will happen to the Internet. It's an argument by analogy. Nobody is arguing that the history doesn't exist, I am asking for evidence that the similarity is so strong that we can conclude that what happened to one will happen to the other.
And then I went further, and said that if we can make such a conclusion, then we must also conclude that any laws we put into place now to ensure neutrality will be eliminated within the next 60 years. You can't expect me to accept only part of the analogy.quote:
There has been a combination of market forces along with the political clout of corporate money that has led to the destruction of broadcast media as a source of information. How can you possibly think that given the same structure of the million dollar microphone and millions of relatively inexpensive receivers we won't have commercial control over Internet information in a short period of time?
Because the structure isn't the same. There is no "million dollar microphone" on the Internet.quote:
Given the evidence that corporate actions in all other cases except Ben and Jerrys is similar, I most certainly can ask you what evidence do you have this won't happen?
I'm not making such a claim, beskeptigal, and you know. You're definitely making a claim, and I'm asking for your evidence. Quit trying to shift the burden.quote:
And are you suggesting we not be concerned given the state of information on TV and radio that the public thinks is informative, but which those of us paying any attention know isn't?
Wow. It's amazing that you can even suggest that I would suggest such a thing. Rather than give me solid reasoning to be concerned, you instead insult me for not being concerned. I appreciate your passion for this (and other) subjects, but the way you express it leaves much to be desired.quote:
Should we ignore the risk until it's too late, or difficult to reverse things?
Of course not.quote:
Re B - What are you talking about? Do you have no clue what has happened to broadcast information? Are you seriously suggesting there is any comparison whatsoever?
You're the one saying that the comparison is valid!quote:
I do have concerns about search engines power to control access to information especially given Google's China example. You have to wonder if Google acquiesced to the Chinese government in order to simply make money or whether the decision makers really thought a foot in the door was better than nothing.
But I can choose different search engines and did still use Teoma until recently. Unfortunately they were acquired by Ask.com. Teoma was more of a science search engine. Regardless, there are many sites like Pubmed and library sites with search engines of various specific data bases. And Google still uses software that merely prioritizes by # of hits on a site. I notice now a lot more of my Google searches turn up a few pages of blogs and forum entries before other sites. When I get commercial sites with a search entry I can usually change the search words and get more informative sites.
And now Google, too? Google is analogous to TV Guide. You want consolidation of information sources, a single magazine is probably your ultimate example. Does TV Guide limit the "free flow of information" due to corporate greed?quote:
Well here's part of the problem right here. You think because there is still access to information on a couple of radio talk shows and Democracy Now! which you didn't mention, that the lack of information going out to mainstream America doesn't matter.
Oh, holy cow!  Either media consolidation has limited the number of voices going out over the airwaves, or it hasn't. One would think that if it were such a threat to diversity, the same broadcaster wouldn't be host to both liberal and conservative talk-show hosts.quote:
Tell me why is it the vast majority of real information is only on the relatively few public channels, and a very few radio stations? What impact does it have when the 'truth and facts' I hear about are not going out to the majority of Americans? My son gets his information from the Internet. My parents' generation and half my neighbors get their information from the TV. And they don't get it from CSPAN or even PBS, let alone SCAN, our real public channel. I have no doubt the majority of Americans are ignorant of their ignorance.
And how is media consolidation to be blamed for that? First you're trying to say that media consolidation has resulted in a lack of information going out, but now you're saying that most people are simply ignorant of how to get to the "real" information. If the real information is being broadcast, beskeptigal, then media consolidation hasn't done the damage you're claiming it has, and its history is just a red herring.quote:
The combination of market forces that has trashed our broadcast media was legislation (paid for of course with political donations) deregulating so monopoly ownership increased, changing news to nothing more than a for profit venture rather than a news venture, and that in turn led to budget decisions such as airing video news releases as real news (production paid for), sticking a mike in front of politicians and calling that news, hiring all those idiot opinion talking heads instead of investigative journalists, and probably a few other things I am leaving out.
Those are market forces, Dave, not analogies.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/05/2007 : 15:57:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
See the above post for your earlier claims there was no threat.
Nope, I still don't see me claiming that there was no threat. You might consider quoting me saying so.quote:
Re this post, where have you been? Those laws restricting media concentration were wiped out by the Bush administration.
According to Moyer's timeline, the consolidation began in 1981.quote:
We should be working to re-instate them, not throw our hands up and say we might as well ignore the same thing happening to the Net because we can't stop it anyway.
What? It seems to me that the reality of the market forces and corporate greed make the elimination of neutrality laws inevitable. Re-instating them will be fruitless, as they'll just be eliminated again. You can't seriously expect me to look to history to see the threat, but ignore history when talking about the solution, can you?quote:
What solutions are you suggesting...
I never claimed to have a viable solution to the problem of greed, which is what this all boils down to.quote:
...and why not stave off the assault on our flow of information until those other solutions are possible?
I'm not sure there is a solution.quote:
More permanent solutions? I think we have that if we don't lose it. It's called free flow of information.
The free flow of information is a solution to the problem of greedy people trying to stifle the free flow of information? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
